On the property it was contended the notice lacked one day of being sufficient to meet the 72 hour requirement contained in Rule 22 (b) because it was posted on Friday, June 25, 1954, one of claimant's rest days and while he was off duty by reason thereof. The seventy-two hour requirement in Rule 22 (b) is in no way qualified by relating it to work days. We think the rule contemplates the seventy-two hour notice may be posted at any time and will be effective as to all employes affected thereby whether they are, at the time, either off or on duty. See Award 1469 of this Division.

It is the organization's thought that the words `men affected,' as used in Rule 22 (b), and of whom a list is to be furnished the local committee, includes all employes affected thereby whether because of the fact that their positions are being abolished or because of the fact that they are being displaced, in the exercise of their seniority, by those whose positions are being abolished. Occupants of positions being abolished in a reduction of force by the carrier may either lay off or exercise seniority as per Rule 24 of the parties' agreement. See Rule 22 (a) thereof. We think the language used in Rule 22 (b) should be applied to the subject of the bulletin to which it relates. In that sense the `men affected' are those who position are being abolished. If we were to extend its meaning beyond that subject, and relate it to all employes who might become affected because of the fact that the men whose positions were being abolished might have and would exercise their seniority, we would place on the carrier an almost impossible, and certainly an impractical requirement, for carrier would then have to anticipate what each employe was going to do. We do not think such was either the intent, meaning or purpose of the language used.

When the bulletins advised all employes concerned of what positions were being abolished, and who occupied them, carrier thereby sufficiently informed them of the possibility that they might be displaced from the positions they then held by the men, whose positions were being abolished, exercising their seniority. That is exactly what happened here. In such instances the rules do not require a seventytwo hour notice.

We think the bulletin posted, copies of which were furnished the local committee, fully met the requirements of 22 (b). In view thereof we find the claim to be without merit."

For the reasons stated above, the carrier respectfully requests the Board to deny the claim in all respects.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, based upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employer. involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

The principle involved in this case was fully discussed and correctly determined in our Award No. 2274. In view of what was said there, in which we concur, the instant claim lacks merit.

AWARD